Wolters Kluwer Health
may email you for journal alerts and information, but is committed
to maintaining your privacy and will not share your personal information without
your express consent. For more information, please refer to our Privacy Policy.

Corrections

In “Increasing Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy: Effect on Cost and Complications” by G.M. Jonsdottir, S. Jorgensen, S.L. Cohen, K.N. Wright, N.T. Shah, N.T. Chavan, and J.I. Einarsson (Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:1142–9), several errors resulted from a flaw in the study methodology (see related Letter to the Editor on page 185). The primary cause of the errors was that total hospital cost was averaged out for all modes of access for hysterectomy, effectively rendering the analysis pertaining to total hospital cost meaningless.

On page 1145, in the last paragraph before the Discussion, the following information should be omitted: “… total mean cost per hysterectomy by year (including all modes of access) did not change significantly but …”; “When analyzed by type of hysterectomy, total mean cost increased significantly for vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy (P<.001) but decreased for robotic hysterectomy (P<.001). Similarly …”; and “Our estimates for the indirect cost to the society for each method in 2009 real U.S. dollars were as follows: for abdominal hysterectomy, the cost was $17,671–18,065; for vaginal hysterectomy, $15,631–16,419; for laparoscopic hysterectomy, $14,826–15,483; and for robotic hysterectomy, $13,501–14,158.”

On page 1147, the title of Table 4 should read: “Operation Cost, Percentages in Difference, and Significance*.” In addition, the first six rows of the table should be omitted so that only operative cost is reported.

On page 1148, third paragraph, first column, the following information should be omitted: “Total mean costs per hysterectomy rose by significant margins over the study period for laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomy, which may be explained partially by the increase in operative costs. Conversely, both the operative cost and total mean cost of robotic hysterectomy decreased significantly, potentially as a result of improved efficiency as our surgeons and ancillary staff gained familiarity with this mode of access. Although robotic hysterectomy often is thought to be the most costly mode from the hospital perspective, our calculated cost to society was lowest for robotic hysterectomy, ranging from $13,501 to $14,158.”

On page 1148, second column, second paragraph, the following sentence should be omitted: “Although the operative cost increased in 2009, the total mean cost was not significantly affected.”

There is an error in the author affiliations in “Determinants of Maternal Sex Steroids During the First Half of Pregnancy” by A. T. Toriola, M. Vääräsmäki, M. Lehtinen, A. Zeleniuch-Jacquotte, E. Lundin, K.-G. Rodgers, H.-A. Lakso, T. Chen, H. Schock, G. Hallmans, E. Pukkala, P. Toniolo, K. Grankvist, H.-M. Surcel, and A. Lukanova (Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:1029–36). The incorrect affiliation is: “From the Division of Preventive Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany; National Institute for Health and Welfare, Oulu, Finland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Department of Environmental Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York; New York University Cancer Institute, New York, New York; Department of Medical Biosciences, University of Umeå, Umeå, Sweden; Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Nutritional Research, University of Umeå, Umeå, Sweden; School of Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland; Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany; Institute for Statistical and Epidemiological Cancer Research, Helsinki, Finland; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York; Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.” The correct affiliation is: “From the Division of Preventive Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany; National Institute for Health and Welfare, Oulu, Finland; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Department of Environmental Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York; New York University Cancer Institute, New York, New York; Department of Medical Biosciences, Pathology, University of Umeå, Umeå, Sweden; Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Nutritional Research, University of Umeå, Umeå, Sweden; School of Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland; Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany; Institute for Statistical and Epidemiological Cancer Research, Helsinki, Finland; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York; Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.” The authors regret this error.